ravencr

I know haveblue posted this, but I'm not sure when he did, so I just wanted to check and see if anyone else has had any experience with either of these two products that Haveblue recommends:

1) http://www.fuelatomizer.com/
2) http://www.fuelenhancer.com/main.html

I beleive he's had the fuel atomizer and likes it very much. I'm wondering if this may be a way to prevent the need for larger injectors, since it's supposed to reduce the amount of liquid fuel the ecu releases? Just a thought. I had some others, but I just lost my mind.

Chris

Jay

Both items are gimmicks, imo.

gonserarch

Your first one seem similar in configuration yet different (yours works on the fuel line) to this device. These people appear to indirectly promise to raise your gas mileage by 20%+/-. :eek:

http://www.condensator.com/

The second one is interesting, especially the testimonial letter and charts from a NASCAR engine builder. These appear to use a magnet of a specific strength and orientation to organize the fuel's molecules. How this affects the molecule and how that relates to better combustion is something that a chemical engineer would have to address.

My question is this. If a simple magnet can be clipped on a fuel line to increase gas mileage, why are the automotive companies spending billions in research to increase fuel efficiency? Could it be that this is a recent discovery that has not yet been recognized by the cognisenti?

If they work, I for one would love to add these simple devices to my rig. If their benefits are additive I'll be jumping for joy!

Personnally, I've measured the effect of the K&N Filter and the result was about a 1.5 mpg loss.

Currently, I've installed and am testing a product called Spiralmax at http://www.spiralmax.com. They promise increase in mileage and horsepower. It uses the principle of organizing yet increasing the turbulent characteristics of the intake system. Some people have claimed benefits by adding one to the exhaust system as well. I have one of them in also.

I can't say anything yet about the mileage, but from the power side it does feel that there is a little more low-midrange power availble.

Rich

ravencr

Here's some comments from Alan on his installed Fuel Atomizer on his supercharged 3.4L 4Runner:

I posted a similar topic a few months ago. I now have more information and thought I'd share with everyone else.

Back in February, I began a quest for better fuel economy in my Ford Escort. In my searches, I came across a device called "The Fuel Atomizer." Since I had not seen this advertised any place else like the Tornado and similar jokes, I decided to purchase one. Before I had a chance to install it on my Escort, I rear-ended a lady in a VW. She was OK, but my Escort was out of commision for five months before I got it running again.
So, I decided to install the device on the 4Runner. I was really hesitatnt at first but now I'm really glad I did.
The theory behind the device is simple: atomized or vaporized fuel burns more completely than liquid fuel resulting in better economy.
Here is a picture of my engine compartment. You will have to click "View Full Size" to read the text captions.
The top-most caption indicates the fuel supply to the atomizer. This is 1/8" copper tubing T'd into the fuel return line. The fuel goes through the device, gets atomized, and passes to the intake where the PCV hose would be. The PCV hose gets diverted to the Atomizer. This is where the device really shines.
Anything that comes out of the PCV valve gets collected in the "sludge chamber" pictured here.
I have to empty the jar every oil change. When poured, the "sludge" has the consistency of really thick chocolate milk. To think, that would be running through my supercharger and engine.
The atomized fuel being supplied to the engine can be controlled by a lever pictured here. The lever is held in place by a wingnut. On fuel injected vehicle, the ECU is supposed to recognize the additional atomized fuel and limit the amount of liquid fuel delivered by the injectors. Unfortunately, I am defeating this because I have larger injectors, Apex'i S-AFC, and a reprogrammed ECU. But, I have still managed to gain 2 mpg in the city and 4-6 on the highway. I am confident I will gain more in my unmodified Escort.

In addition to the lack of junk running through my engine, my throttle body stays cleaner longer, and I no longer experience the lean condition at high RPMs. Something that is problematic with supercharged 3.4s.

Over all, I am impressed with this device and would definately recomend it to someone else.



What do you think now Jay?

Chris

Joe

I'll have to go with Jay and would predict that if 999 other individuals did the exact install you did, they would not obtain your results and would be very disappointed. Soooo Chris, I think you're one in a thousand. :confused:

ravencr

Joe,

I haven't purchased and installed one yet, so I'm guessing that it's not a great investment at all. I wonder if anyone else has purchased it except for Alan? Anyone know?

Chris

hell_on_ice

I don't know anything about the "atomizer" so I won't comment there, but fuel line magnets have been around for years and have been proven time and time again to be a worthless gimmick. They have no effect on your fuel economy whatsoever. Don't waste your money. The only real way to improve your gas mileage is to change your driving style. I drive like a madman and get 11-13 mpg. I've managed to get 18-20 mpg on long trips simply by not trying to put the gas pedal through the floor. If only I could do that more often, I'd save one hell of a lot of money on gas.

tomus1000

If any of these so-called economy boosters actually worked, then all new cars would come with them from the factory. The car companies are getting pounded by the gov't to reduce emmissions and raise economy. If the solution was this easy, then there would be no problem at all...

ravencr

I personally disagree a tad with that statement, Noel. If they included everything available on our cars, would they put in superchargers, larger injectors, larger fuel pumps, better breathing MAF, a perfect ECU, and still be a reasonable expense to the consumer in addition to have 50 mpg? Boy wouldn't that be great! I sell cars for a living, and what drives the automobile industry is money, obviously. If our cars had everything that we do to them aftermarket wise, they would be too expensive, which they already are for most americans already. The gas companies are probably the most powerful group in America, in my opinion. I don't think for one second that they couldn't easily produce cars that produce upwards of 50, 60, 70-100 mpg. Why doesn't it happen. Sure the car companies get major heat from the environmental folks, but who do you think is more powerful: gas companies or environmentalists?

Well, sorry for that very opinionated response. Not attacking anyone, but just a thought on the way I perceive things to work. Watcha think?

My main concern for the atomizer is this: I've been told that colder fuel (i.e. early morning start) does not atomize well until it heats up, right? Well, during that time frame the fuel is still cold and in the process of warming up, the ECU automatically dumps more liquid fuel, which deteriorates as the fuel begins to heat up. Once heated to normal temperatures, the liquid fuel is easily atomized, which in turn requires less liquid fuel to be needed. But, it's my understading that our engines only atomize about 15-20% of the liquid fuel. What if we could atomize double that or triple that? What would happen? What would happen if all it did was increase ataomization of the fuel by 10%? If I'm understanding all this correctly, then that would trigger the ECU to believe that there is a enough atomized fuel, therefore reducing the amount of liquid fuel, which in turn would reduce the total amount of fuel used (i.e. better gas mileage)

Ah, how does that argument sound? Any valid arguments in there? Probably way off on all that, but that's just me thinking again. Help me get back on track!

Chris

Joe

Sounds like somebody that’s got more money than good sense. No offense Chris, but the devil made me say that. As with the old adage: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't true. Getting 50 mpg is not a big problem - we can already do that - but do we want to drive those "things"? Kind of difficult getting 50 mpg in a 3.5K# 4X4 vehicle with 4:88 gears, wide tires, and all the HP and torque we can muster from a little 3L or 4L engine. BUT, most of us have to learn the hard way by believing a few of these "marketers" who influence us to put our money down with high hopes and every damn time we do, we tell our self we'll never believe another BS ad but somehow a marketer figures out a way to get us to bite again and again and--. You on the right track yet? If not just keep putting your money down. (I'm broke.)

ravencr

I sure wish HaveBlue would find this thread and respond. He's the only one that has the system that I know of of. Plus he get's better gas mileage than all of us. So, fact or opinion, I'd like to hear his comments. Calling HaveBlue!!!

Chris

Memphis4X4

I am a Chemical Engineer by degree and I still am trying to figure out how a simple magnet can magically allign fuel molecules as they flow past/through it. What's baffling :eek: is, I would think that the close proximity of high-voltage spark-plug wires, alternator, or other electro-magnetic producing items would/could un-allign the "effect" of the magnet.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.......maybe its a magic magnet......yeah, that's it......it's a Magic Magnet!


:pat: I agree with Jay......GIMMICKS

HaveBlue

Hey all-
Sorry for the long delay in my reply.
Here is the research I conducted and the results I obtained.
I began over a year ago when my daily commute was over 60 miles round-trip. I bought a Honda Civic to save on the cost of fuel as well as wear on the 4Runner. The Honda averaged 40 mpg for a week of driving. I trip to Colorado Springs yielded 56 mpg! I still wanted better. First, I performed a tune-up on the Honda (new cap/rotor, spark plugs, wires, O2 sensor, etc) and marked my results. I gained about 1 mpg. Then, I began research on ways to improve economy. I came up with similar results for each of my searches usually for three different devices: Magnet, Swirler, and Atomizer. Gadget clued me in on another great idea recently, a heat exchanger.
I wasn’t thrilled with the magnet idea. It didn’t make sense to me that a magnet could be used to “re-arrange” fuel atoms for better combustion. I’ll leave the proof to someone who knows more about chemical engineering.
Next was the “swirler.” You’ve heard of these under the names of “SpiralMax” or “Tornado Fuel Saver.” This is a device you stick in your intake tube to “swirl” the air or add turbulence. That didn’t make much sense to me either. In my experience, sticking things in the intake will diminish performance. Plus, while the device might actually swirl the air, there are too many obstructions that would eliminate the swirl, i.e. throttle body, intake plenum, valves, etc.
Last was the “fuel atomizer.” The device supposedly atomizes or vaporizes fuel for better combustion. Although this sounds like a gimmick, too, I was impressed with the overall principal. So, I bought one.
My original intent was to install it on my Ford Escort GT (which replaced the Honda). But, a fender-bender to the Escort encouraged me to install it on the 4Runner. I was very leary and skeptical because I very rarely test something on the 4Runner first. Usually, I test it on another car first. I wasn’t expecting huge results due to the fact that the 4Runner is supercharged. And at first, I didn’t get any results. But, after some adjustments and fine tuning, I started seeing an improvement. Here’s what I’ve attained and what combinations yielded that result:
21.86 mpg –combination city/highway-stock supercharger pulley
23.67 mpg –highway only-stock supercharger pulley (from Denver to Silverthorne, mostly uphill)
25.4 mpg –highway only-stock s/c pulley (from Denver to Cabella’s, Sydney, NE)
22.2 mpg – combination city/highway-stock s/c pulley
19.1 mpg –city only-stock s/c pulley
18.2 mpg –city only-9lb s/c pulley
20.3 mpg –city/highway-9lb s/c pulley
20.8 mpg –city/highway-9lb s/c pulley and synthetic oil
21.6 mpg –highway only-9lb s/c pulley, synthetic oil (from Denver to Vail, mostly uphill)
20.6 mpg –highway only-9lb s/c pulley, synthetic oil, TRD 160* thermostat (from Denver to Vail)
17.4 mpg –city only-9lb s/c pulley, synthetic oil, TRD 160* thermostat
16.9 mpg –city only-9lb s/c pulley, synthetic oil, TRD 160* thermostat (crappy winter fuel)
18.3 mpg –city/highway-9lb s/c pulley, synthetic oil, TRD 160* thermostat (crappy winter fuel)
In December, I switched back to the stock s/c pulley and regained 1.2-2.2 mpg but still suffer due to crappy winter fuels.
Before the atomizer, I averaged 15.3 city and 17.9 highway.
In case you were wondering, the comparisons were made with the following modifications:
Supercharger
Headers
305cc Supra injectors
Electric fan conversion
K&N FIPK
BF Goodrich T/A KO 265/75R16

In addition to improving mileage, the atomizer removes a lot of crap being re-circulated through the engine. Here’s a picture:Fuel Atomizer Sludge

I switched back to the stock airbox with the deckplate mod in November but have not noticed any change in mileage.

Future plans:
I intend to buy a 1st gen 4Runner and modify it strictly for trail use. I will be installing the BFGs from my 3rd gen to the 1st gen and installing some nice street tires on the 3rd gen. Hopefully, the reduced rolling friction will yield another .6-1.0 mpg.
Also, thanks to a great idea from Gadget, I will be adding a heat exchanger to heat the fuel going into the engine.
At this point, I cannot add anything to my Escort because it uses braided fuel lines that cannot be cut. I will have to devise a way to attached one of the special couplers on my Escort to a NPT fitting so that I can incorporate a fuel atomizer or heat exchanger.

Hope that answer most of your questions. Once again, sorry for the delay!

ravencr

Thanks Haveblue!

When you purchase the atomizer, did you become a dealer too? If so, how much will you charge me for it?

Chris

P.S. Where do I find out more about the heat exchangers?

tomus1000

Ok, Ok, Ok, I'm impressed with those results! I drive a Supercharged D-Cab, and I have never seen over 20 mpg let alone 25. I might just have to plunk down the money for one. How bad could it be? God knows that I have spent much more than that on some of the useless crap that I have collected.

What is up with a heat exchanger? How does it work? How are they installed? How much $$$?

ravencr

I agree with you Noel! I'm impressed for sure. Hey Alan, why do you think the cooler thermostat reduced your gas mileage that much? Any ideas on that, or do you think it's the winter fuel only?

Chris

Shane

I'm sorry, but that's just pure bulls***. :rolleyes:

A cooler thermostat will prevent the ECU from entering closed loop mode, keeping it in the richer open loop mode causing a loss in gas mileage and an small increase in power from the richer mixture.

ravencr

That makes total sense! I agree that a 10-24 mpg jump is too large to beleive, but I can't argue with Haveblue's results. I'm going to get one, but I wanted to see if Haveblue is a dealer first, so I could buy one from him.

Chris

midiwall

Hi Alan;

Can you expand on what "adjustments and fine tuning" you did? Was this within the scope of atomizer or were you refering to the turbo adjustments you outlined?

If I figure on a 2mpg increase, bringing me to 18mpg and $1.36/gal here, then given the cost to "join the club and get a free atomizer" is $156, it'll take a while to make up the investment. Bottom line, do you think that it was worth it?

(edit: I worked this out... Right now I get about 16mpg which is 8.5 cents per mile at $1.36 gallon. Moving to 18mpg reduces my cost to 7.5 cents per mile, so I'm saving 1.0 cents per mile. Which means I'd have to drive 15,600 miles to pay for the device. Someone correct me if I'm confused )


Have you seen any issues with the MIL coming on? Anything like hard starting? Running in cold weather (i.e. have you had it in through a CO winter)?

How's your power band? Given that you did this on a turbo, then do you think that you would notice a "slight" drop in power compared to a straight intake system?

Any chance that you have access to a fiber optic lamp? I'd love to know what the inside of that manifold on the unit looks like.


Thanks for sharing your experiences.

Jay

Still not buying it.